*Vent* RSPCA!

powerful_Rogue

houseimprover wrote: »

the greater good is in looking after animals, it would save more than prosecuting people/groups

Were just going to go around in circles. Ive made my point and youve made yours.

powerful_Rogue

houseimprover wrote: »

They are a charity, not a government body though, thus not their job to do this.

It shouldn't be the job of the RNLI to risk their lives everytime they go out to sea but they do.
Just because it is a charity, makes no difference.

houseimprover

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Were just going to go around in circles. Ive made my point and youve made yours.

Yup. thanks.

marleyboy

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

It shouldn't be the job of the RNLI to risk their lives everytime they go out to sea but they do.
Just because it is a charity, makes no difference.

That's a very good analogy PR. :T

BBQ141

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

So you would like the understaffed and overworked police to take on responsibility for all animal investigations and prosecutions as well?

It is already the job of the police (the National Wildlife Crime Unit for example), as well as local authorities, DEFRA Investigation Services, certain other parts of DEFRA and various other environment related government agencies.

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

Because its not the responsibility for the police to deal with all crimes.

Department for work and pensions deal with benefit crime.
Border Force deal with crime relating to illegal entry and smuggling.
HMRC deal with tax evasion.
Etc etc

You seem to be under the impression that because something is illegal, it should only be the police that deal with it, which is totally incorrect.

Please see above.

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

The RSCPA prosecute for animal abuse. They are the lead agency. However due to their lack of powers, they often have to have the assistance of the police.

Personally, I would like to see the RSPCA given powers to go it alone.

The RSPCA are not a "lead agency" they are simply in a position which allows them to bring private prosecutions, often vexatious ones, because they have more money than other charities allowing them to do so.

BBQ141

LadyL2013 wrote: »

But surely they would only want to be inspecting your animals if they had had a tip off? In which case, how exactly do you expect animal cruelty to be investigated if they didn't check claims out? Sure you could get the police out every time but how much police time would that waste? The current system seems to be the best that we have at the moment.

I would have no qualms letting inspectors in if someone accused me of mistreating my pets as it couldn't be further from the truth, regardless of if they had official powers or not.

I expect animal related crimes to be investigated, but by the proper authorities, not by a charity.

The current system is not the best one.

aileth wrote: »

Chances are they are investigating you for a reason.

Maybe take better care of vulnerable animals under your care?

The NSPCC wouldn't rock up at your door for your kids anyway, they'd send Social Services and if you refused them access you might as well pack a suitcase for the kiddywinks.

Just to clarify I am not being investigated by the RSPCC, I simply deal with them from time to time in my day job and was annoyed by what I had seen on TV.

You are 100% correct, the NSPCC wouldn't turn up at your door because they are just a charity, they would send the correct relevant legal authority. Which the RSPCA do not do, as they turn up at people's doors and attempt to "investigate" (which they are not qualified to do) animal crime or they simply steal people's animals.

AnnieO1234 wrote: »

I believe they will get the police out and action a warrant if necessary and if the owner is being uncooperative. I am shocked that anyone would have such a view of a service there to assist vulnerable animals. Maybe it's a case that they don't care for trolls.

The RSPCA are no longer allowed to swear out warrants, this only even happened due to a mistake. Current police guidelines also state that the RSPCA/RSBP shouldn't be named on warrants relating to animal crime.

BBQ141

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

It shouldn't be the job of the RNLI to risk their lives everytime they go out to sea but they do.
Just because it is a charity, makes no difference.

The difference is the RNLI are providing a much needed service, and they are not attempting to "investigate" crime, or prosecute people, or even put them down when they have a broken leg.

LadyL2013

houseimprover wrote: »

I look after my animals well, if the RSPCA came a knocking they'd get short shrift

I'm not saying people who have the RSPCA round do neglect their animals. Hell, we had them round once because an old lady up the road wanted our cat and phoned them to say we hadn't been feeding him. After another chat with her she said that she didn't think it was fair that we had a cat and she didn't. The inspectors were happy that we clearly adored our pet and moved on, no biggie.

I felt that I was so offended someone would thinking I was neglecting my pet that I was more than happy to show them this was not the case. Maybe it's just me?

But if you do decide to not allow them in, then you must also accept that that in itself will arouse suspicion and may lead to further investigations. If you're OK with that, then fair enough.

BBQ141

LadyL2013 wrote: »

But if you do decide to not allow them in, then you must also accept that that in itself will arouse suspicion and may lead to further investigations. If you're OK with that, then fair enough.

But why should you allow them in, they have no legal right or authority to do so, they have no legal powers to take away an animal. If you do not let them in it is not a sign that your animal may have been mistreated, it is a sign that you do not want a charity worker in fancy dress entering your property.

And if you arouse their suspicions, so what?

powerful_Rogue

BBQ141 wrote: »

But why should you allow them in, they have no legal right or authority to do so, they have no legal powers to take away an animal. If you do not let them in it is not a sign that your animal may have been mistreated, it is a sign that you do not want a charity worker in fancy dress entering your property.

And if you arouse their suspicions, so what?

Does the same apply to St John Ambulance and RNLI?